Scholars weigh in with different views of the Israel-Hamas war, campus protests, and divestment.
This summer, the Teaching, Research & International Policy (TRIP) Project at William & Mary surveyed U.S.-based international relations (IR) scholars in a “snap poll.” Five of the survey questions covered the Israel-Hamas war, including assessments of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, the impact of U.S. campus protests on the 2024 presidential election, and whether universities should divest from Israel.
Members of the TRIP team wrote up the results here, but I was curious about whether respondents’ personal and professional backgrounds influenced their answers.
The TRIP data on IR teaching
A couple of years ago, using a different set of TRIP surveys, I found interesting differences in scholars’ thinking on world events based on their age, gender, political party, and academic rank. For instance, women were more likely than men to rank the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Arab Spring, and the 2020 racial justice protests as most influential for their teaching of IR. Men, by contrast, were more likely to cite the Cold War as most influential. There was also a generational divide, with younger scholars being less likely than older scholars to report the Cold War as most influential for their teaching and more likely to point to 9/11 and the 2020 racial justice protests.
I found equally interesting differences in how world events show up in the IR classroom, also connected to various aspects of professors’ identities. One example is from the aftermath of the 2020 racial justice protests: Women and Democrats were more likely to adjust their IR courses to address issues of race in world politics than were men and Republicans.
Across both surveys, I was somewhat surprised to see differences in results across gender and age, but not race. On the whole, it seems that white scholars and scholars of color have a similar approach to teaching IR. White scholars and scholars of color also conduct similar types of research, as my coauthors and I found in a survey of security studies scholars that we published last year.
Here’s my follow-up on these demographic findings, using the new TRIP survey on the war in Gaza. Combined with anecdotal evidence from colleagues in the profession, the earlier surveys led me to expect that women and younger scholars would be more critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza over the past year and more supportive of student protests and universities divesting from companies with ties to Israel.
Given growing solidarity for Palestinians among Black Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos, I also expected that scholars of color would be more critical of the war and supportive of student protests and economic divestment. I haven’t talked with anyone who supports academic boycotts, so I didn’t expect to see much support for that proposal.
This summer’s TRIP survey supported some of my expectations, but not all.
The TRIP survey methodology
Between June 25 and July 14, 2024, TRIP contacted 5,146 U.S.-based IR scholars, of which 733 responded to at least one question, yielding a response rate of approximately 14%.
Among respondents, 526 were men (72%), 189 were women (26%), 17 preferred not to answer (2%), and 1 person identified as nonbinary. Of the total, 466 identified as Democrats (64%), 176 (24%) as independents, and 28 (4%) as Republicans. And 63 respondents (9%) said something else or didn’t answer the party identification question. Overall, 83% of scholars surveyed hold tenured positions, with just 8% and 9% holding tenure-track and non-tenure track positions, respectively.
TRIP didn’t ask respondents their race or age in this particular survey. But TRIP has this information for some scholars who’ve participated in previous surveys. Here’s how it works: The first time a scholar takes a TRIP survey, the research team assigns them a unique identifier. The TRIP team can then use this identifier to match a scholar’s survey responses over time, all while preserving confidentiality and privacy. When sharing data with scholars such as myself, TRIP excludes any information that would make it possible to identify individual scholars.
Because the IR field lacks racial diversity, it would be relatively easy to figure out the identity of, let’s say, a 31-year-old Black woman associate professor. To prevent this from happening, TRIP re-coded data on race into three broad categories: white, non-white, and mixed (white and non-white). Similarly, TRIP placed respondents into age cohorts (e.g., 45 to 54 years old) and listed respondents as tenured, tenure-track, or non-tenure-track (without distinguishing, for example, associate professors from named chairs).
For the June-July 2024 survey, 61% of respondents had participated in a previous TRIP survey with a racial identification question. Of these, roughly 88% are white, 9% are non-white, and 3% are mixed. About half had participated in a previous survey with an age question. Of these, the largest group (approximately 36%) is between 55 and 64 years old. Individuals under 45 make up about 4% of the sample while those aged 45 to 54 make up 27% and those aged 65 and above make up 33%.
This additional data allows us to evaluate what, if any, relationship race and age have with scholars’ assessments of the war in Gaza, student protests, and university investment decisions.
Top-line findings
In the June-July TRIP snap poll, approximately 77% of IR scholars said they disapproved of Israel’s military action in Gaza, compared to 17% who said they approved and 6% who said they had no opinion. A Gallup public opinion poll in June found that 48% of the U.S. public disapproved of Israel’s military action in Gaza. That suggests a wide gulf between how academics and the broader public see the war. In Good Authority, Alexandra Guisinger and Anna Rowland have shown that academics and the public see a host of foreign policy issues differently, not just the war in Gaza.
Political scientists – including Lisa Dellmuth, Jan Aart Scholte, Jonas Tallberg, and Soetkin Verhaegen in the American Political Science Review – have found an “elite-citizen gap” in attitudes toward international affairs. This gap is due in part to differences in education and socioeconomic status, with elites more likely to have advanced degrees and be better off financially. Most of the elites surveyed in that study work in politics and government, but the authors also sampled people in business, media, and research. IR scholars in the TRIP survey appear to resemble these elites.
Two in five scholars supported the idea of universities divesting from companies with ties to Israel. But less than one in three thought student protests would influence universities’ decision to divest. Scholars were evenly split over whether students should (41%) or shouldn’t (41%) have a say in university investment decisions.
IR scholars overwhelmingly said no to academic boycotts. Specifically, they were asked: “Should your college or university boycott all collaborations (e.g., study abroad programs, co-authorships, visiting scholars, speakers, etc.) with Israeli universities and scholars at Israeli universities in response to Israeli military action in Gaza?” Although the American Association for University Professors has said boycotts can be an expression of academic freedom, many scholars see them as contrary to academic freedom. And 86% of IR scholars oppose them.
Partisan differences
There was a large partisan difference, with 81% of Republican-identifying scholars approving of Israeli action in Gaza, compared to just 10% of Democrat-identifying scholars. However, Democrats, Republicans, and independents agreed at similar rates (ranging between 63% and 68%) that the Israel-Hamas war would be “very important” or “extremely important” for the 2024 U.S. presidential election and would be more consequential for Democrats than Republicans. At the time of the TRIP summer snap poll, President Joe Biden was still at the top of the Democratic ticket. Vice President Kamala Harris now leads the ticket with Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as her running mate.
The gender gap
Women scholars were more likely to disapprove of Israel’s conduct in Gaza than were men (90% compared to 73%). This result is consistent with political science research that finds a “gender gap” in support for war. But the gender gap in support for war partly hinges on specific war aims, research shows. Women are more likely than men to support wars fought for humanitarian reasons and wars with U.N. approval than they are to support wars fought without U.N. approval, or wars fought for economic or strategic reasons.
The United Nations hasn’t approved the war in Gaza or how it’s being conducted. U.N. reports also suggest it isn’t a humanitarian war. At least not anymore. Under international law, Israel has a right to defend itself, including in response to the heinous Oct. 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas militants. But Israel doesn’t have a right to commit atrocities, which have been alleged in multiple international fora, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). I’ve covered proceedings at the ICC and ICJ in Good Authority here, here, and here.
On divestment, 54% of women scholars compared to 35% of men strongly supported universities divesting economically from Israel – a finding consistent with women scholars’ stronger opposition to Israel’s military action in Gaza. Interestingly, women were more likely than men (49% compared to 39%) to think students should have a say in university investment decisions. Women were also less likely than men (79% compared to 89%) to oppose academic boycotts. While there is a 10-point difference, the percentage of women scholars opposing cutting ties with academics and academic institutions in Israel is still very large.
The race gap
Perhaps surprisingly, a smaller percentage of non-white scholars disapproved of Israel’s military operation in Gaza (67%) compared to white scholars (80%). Nonetheless, that’s a large majority of non-white scholars disapproving of Israel’s conduct. It’s worth noting, too, that non-white scholars make up a small percentage of the overall sample – just 9% – making the results more sensitive to differences in opinion among a smaller number of people.
A March 2024 Chicago Council on Global Affairs-Ipsos poll showed that 30% of Black Americans and 26% of Hispanic Americans thought that “Israel has gone too far, and its military actions aren’t justified,” compared to 32% of white Americans. Another 57% of Black Americans and 52% of Hispanic Americans said they “[d]on’t know enough to have an opinion,” compared to 34% of white Americans. In a similar vein, 15% of non-white scholars in the TRIP survey said they had no opinion, compared to just 5% of white scholars.
Combined, these results suggest that the Israel-Hamas war is more salient for white people than it is for other groups. Of course, this could change if the United States gets more involved in the war and other unfolding conflicts in the Middle East. Last year, political scientists Naima Green-Riley and Andrew Leber published an article in Security Studies in which they found a “race gap” in support for war between white and Black Americans, similar to the “gender gap” discussed above. The authors found that Black Americans support war less because they worry more about battlefield deaths and injuries. Black Americans’ disapproval can be exacerbated by “[f]eelings of political alienation and preferences for domestic spending.” Similar results could bear out for other racial minority groups – but more research is needed.
On the economic divestment question, white and non-white scholars’ views were comparable: 39% and 36%, respectively, supported universities cutting economic ties. And just 42% and 39%, respectively, thought students should have a say in university investment decisions. Similar to the difference between women and men, non-white scholars were less likely than white scholars to oppose academic boycotts (75% compared to 89%). But, again, these results should be read in light of the small number of non-white scholars surveyed and recognizing the overall high level of opposition to academic boycotts.
The age gap
Disapproval of Israel’s conduct in Gaza is strongly tied to age: 90% of scholars under 45 disapproved compared to 85% of scholars aged 45 to 54, 71% of scholars aged 55 to 64, and 75% of scholars 65 years and older. Still, it is notable that a large majority of each of these age cohorts disapproved.
In terms of economic divestment opinions, scholars under 45 were the least sure about whether universities should divest. Overall, 40% indicated they were “not sure” while 20% indicated some level of support (“somewhat support,” “support,” or “strongly support”). For the 45 to 54 cohort, 20% said they weren’t sure, while 34% indicated support. For the 55 to 64 cohort, 10% said they weren’t sure, while 41% indicated support. Similarly, for the 65+ cohort, 9% said they weren’t sure, while 41% indicated their support.
Should students have a say? Scholars under 45 were once again less sure than scholars in the older age cohorts. Scholars under 45 were also nearly evenly split in agreeing and disagreeing about student voice. Between 41% and 46% of the older cohorts agreed students should have a say. Results were most consistent with respect to academic boycotts, with between 82% and 87% of respondents stating their opposition to this proposal.
The rank gap
As mentioned, 83% of scholars sampled were in tenured positions, while 8% and 9% were in tenure-track and non-tenure track positions, respectively. Across disciplines nationwide, only one-quarter of faculty hold tenured positions, while more than two-thirds are in contingent positions, indicating that the TRIP sample isn’t representative of the national faculty population. In this survey, 77% of tenured faculty disapproved of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, compared to 71% of non-tenure-track faculty and 80% of tenure-track faculty. But as with non-white scholars, results for tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty should be read in context of the smaller percentage of the survey sample they make up.
More tenure-track faculty (49%) than tenured and non-tenure-track faculty (39% and 39%, respectively) supported economic divestment. But fewer tenure-track faculty (30%) than tenured and non-tenure-track faculty (43% and 36%, respectively) thought students should have a say. Between 86% and 89% of faculty of all ranks opposed academic boycotts.
Concluding thoughts
Prior research shows people’s identities influence how they see the world and how they respond to historical and contemporary world events. And that includes academics. As we witness a devastating and escalating set of conflicts in the Middle East, scholars are once again taking in events differently. In particular, women disapprove of Israel’s conduct in Gaza more than men, younger scholars more than older scholars, and Democrats more than Republicans.
The results are more complicated when it comes to race and academic rank. Meanwhile, many are skeptical of student protests and their potential influence on universities’ investment and divestment decisions. Few indicated any support for academic boycotts.
One clear message stands out: IR scholars across the board disapprove of the war in Gaza.
Stay up to date on all things politics and political science. Sign up for Good Authority’s weekly newsletter by entering your email address in the box below.
The post What do international relations scholars think about the war in Gaza? appeared first on Good Authority.